The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.

A framework can be everything you use in application development. It can be a library, a collection of many libraries, a collection of scripts, or any piece of software you need to create your application. Framework is just a very vague term.

For me, the question is whether something is ancillary or central. For me, a framework is a foundation that sits between the OS API and your code and can't be switched out without a whole lot of rewriting and even re-architecting (this last point is often lost on management; "We'll just switch from .NET to Qt--how hard can it be?" Or, "Can't you just convert the RealBasic code to C++?" Convert meaning, do it in a weekend.)

"In a discovery that raises questions about the validity of a huge volume of animal research, not to mention the personal hygiene of male scientists, a study has found that mice dislike the smell of men.
Scientists found that even the presence of a T-shirt that had been worn by a man was enough to trigger a stress response and this appeared to blunt the rodents’ experience of pain."

Times UK: "Scientists sniff out the truth of mice and men" April 29, 2014 [^].

I've thought that to the degree contemporary western psychology has been based on research carried out on mice, rats, and select college students, that it is dubious, and its correlations and generalizations often unwarranted. I'm not saying, however, that I have some bias against quantitative research !

I am utterly fascinated by what current advances in the technology of monitoring the human brain are telling us about the biological basis on consciousness, and I have been fascinated by this topic since the 1970's when Dr. Joe Kamiya (a pioneer in the development of bio- and neuro- feedback) was carrying out his research on physiological response to meditation at UC San Francisco.

Among the delightful highlights of Kamiya's studies: those assigned to "meditate on mantras" of syllables chosen at random had the same physiological responses that those using mantras given to them by their "Transcendental Meditation" teachers (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi flavor meditation) had. Please note that by mentioning that study I do not mean to imply that there may not be many other significant, but difficult-to-quantify, effects ... social, emotional, behavioral ... of meditation shaped by the social context, and belief-systems, in which it occurs.

“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges

I am utterly fascinated by what current advances in the technology of monitoring the human brain are telling us about the biological basis on consciousness

My gf is getting her MA in psychology and we've been having a few philosophical discussions regard consciousness. What I'm particular interested in is the middle ground. Let me explain. The neuroscientists et al look for consciousness strictly in the physical processes of the brain, while the "metaphysicists" (I use this term loosely because I can't think of anything else, and philosopher / theologian / spiritualist is too wordy and incomplete as well) looks for consciousness connected to the unmeasurable concepts of the soul, the spirit, the breath of God, etc., usually to the exclusion of any physical basis (or as so many new-agers demonstrate, any grasp of the physical basis, to the point of even complete denial.)

What I'm curious about is, what about the middle ground, in which the brain, as a physical organ, must exist because it's part of the physical world, but there is, in addition, an aspect of consciousness that cannot ever be measured but none-the-less still exists. Along the lines of what Alan W. Watts writes (I'll paraphrase), consciousness is the result of a completely unconscious evolutionary process. For me, that is quite a statement to contemplate, because I don't think we can separate what we call consciousness from the processes that created consciousness -- they are intimately intertwined. Or, in different words, consciousness is something that exists both worlds -- in the "measurable" physical world and the unmeasurable (or immeasurable?) non-physical world. Take, for example, an idea. It has a certain concreteness to it in that it can be conveyed to another person, and yes, you could even possibly determine and measure the neurons the fire when the person thinks "the idea", but you cannot capture the essence of what the idea actually is by physical measurement alone. And I personally don't believe we ever will, not matter how fine and advanced our instruments become.

How would you classify states of matter? They obviously exist and it is natural for us to think about them, however they only exist as a statistical relationship between a collection of objects. Water molecules exist, but what level of existence do you assign to the concept of ice? The only difference between that and an idea is a difference of degree.

Werner Heisenberg: "Atoms are not things." quoted by Richard Rhodes in his masterpiece, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" [^]. A book so compelling I have read it three times, and still feel it has much to teach me.

“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges

I think I understand the quote, but I'm not sure how you think it relates to my earlier statement. Things that we consider the most permanent and solid, exist purely as statistical relationships between the smaller elements that make them up. I don't know where you stand on Mark's statements that thoughts belong to another realm, but is it impossible to believe that our thoughts and selves could exist in the relations of billions of much more complicated building blocks.

What is the current status of Silverlight in the Microsoft technology stack?

The last time I used Silverlight was 2010 or so, and I'm aware that v5 was the last major release made. I'm interviewing for a new job and I want to be able to speak with authority regarding the viability of using it. Beyond the fact that MS isn't updating it anymore, is there any reason not to recommend it? The only other alternative is MVC, but I'm much more comfortable with Silverlight.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010-----You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010-----When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

What is the current status of Silverlight in the Microsoft technology stack?

Dead?

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephantAnonymous----- The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuineWinston Churchill, 1944----- I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.Me, all the time

Silverlight, as a pure web development platform is no longer under active feature enhancement development. This doesn't mean that there won't be bug fixes and the likes, only that the main plugin based component will not see significant new features.

I think you're right Pete, but as I mentioned in my brief but eloquent post, for all in tents and porpoises, it might as well be dead. Surely, nobody in their right mind would use it to start developing a major and/or important piece of software NOW?

Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephantAnonymous----- The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuineWinston Churchill, 1944----- I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.Me, all the time

I'm being very careful in my wording as the plugin is no longer going to be enhanced significantly, but Silverlight itself is now the underpinnings of things like Windows Phone (including the strategy of XAML development across the board with the Universal apps proposition).

Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I mean is that Silverlight is not going anywhere anymore, but WPF is. And they are very similar to each other except, Silverlight is focuses the web. And you're right, silverlight's navigational flow resembles well WP model.